[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd)

Thu Dec 28 20:35:50 UTC 2006

Ilmari Karonen wrote:

>jayjg wrote:
>  
>
>>No, a source is only required for anything that is disputed. That's
>>pretty fundamental, WP:V. Quite workable and highly desirable.
>>    
>>
>The problem with that, of course, is that, given sufficient time and 
>sufficiently many people, _anything_ can and will be disputed, including 
>the color of the sky on a clear day.
>
>Or, let me quote the start of an actual argument from [[Talk:Elision]]:
>
>"Oh, I deliberately used my version of showing speech because I dispute 
>the IPA's. I deny the existence of the schwa, I object to r/R sounds as 
>being difthongs, I refute its status of r and R as consonants but as 
>vowels, I object to its fictive prescription of whether whichever words 
>are aspirated or unaspirated, I object to its using lone or blended 
>glyfs for clusters as careless overlooking of the intention of the key 
>as showing a one-to-one relationship between sound and glyf, and as no 
>part of speech was given to the words in my list. Do you wish to obscure 
>my work from accuracy?"
>
My first observations are the ten uses in one short paragraph of the 
words "I" or "my", and the eccentric spellings "difthongs" and "glyf".  
If I were to read nothing else about the subject, I would at least be 
prepared for an idiosyncratic and personal treatment.  These are far 
stronger indicators of original research than a complete lack of references.

Ec